The Feminine Reality

I think one of the basic premises I acknowledge in my essays is one that even some of the more ‘enlightened’ Men of the ‘community’ don’t entirely grasp. This is the presumption of a feminine reality. Sometimes I refer to this as the female imperative, other times I might colloquially express it in terms of it being “The Matrix” for an ease of understanding, but I always presume my readers (even of my comments on other blogs or forums) have a basic understanding of this.

I think I may be a bit mistaken in this.

Everything a man experiences, every social conditioning he receives from the earliest age, every accepted social norm and every expectation of him to qualify as the definition of a mature adult Man in contemporary society is designed to serve the female imperative. Moralist wallow in it, absolutists and defeated white knights existentially depend upon it, and even the better part of relativists still (often unwittingly) feed and serve the feminine purpose. In fact, so all encompassing is this reality that we define our masculinity in the terms of how well we can accommodate that feminne influence.

Our media celebrates it, and brooks no dissent. There is very little dissent, since to peel back the veneer is to be at odds with a reality defined by the female purpose. You feel lonely because you can’t understand it’s influence, and the conditioning you’ve been subjected to defines the objective solution to curing that feeling. You base the decisions of your future, your education, your career, your religious beliefs, even where you’ll choose to live, to better accomodate the feminine influence either in the present or in preparation of accommodating it in the future.

You get married, out of fear for not being found acceptable of it, or from social shame for not yet having accepted your role in service to the imperative. Your children are offered in tribute to it, while in turn you unknowingly perpetuate it in them. You pay tribute in alimony, in divorce proceedings, in the expected sacrifices your career demands to maintain its influence in your own life and in society at large. You exist to facilitate a feminine reality.

We can excuse it with moralisms, we can attach notions of honor and stability to it, we can even convince ourselves that the feminine imperative is OUR own imperative, but regardless, men still serve it.

Sexual Strategies

For one gender to realize their sexual imperative the other must sacrifice their own. This is the root source of power the feminine imperative uses to establish its own reality as the normative one. From this flows the rules of engagement for dating / mating, operative social conventions used to maintain cognitive dominance, and laws and legalities that bind society to the benefit of the feminine. From this is derived men’s default status as the ‘disposable’ sex, while women are the protected sex. It’s this root that the imperative uses to excuse (not apologize for) the most blatant inconsistencies and atrocities of women.

Monogamy and fidelity are only useful when paired with an optimized hypergamy. Without that optimization, they’re inconvenient obligations to the the feminine reality.

In order to effect this reality men must be convinced of a degree of more control than the feminine imperative exerts. They must believe that it is they who are the masters of a reality defined by the feminine, while remaining dependent upon the systems that the feminine reality outlines for them. So they are told they are Kings, brutes, savages, patricians, intellectuals, anything that might convince them that the reality they exist in is privileged and expressly serves their purpose. Already the ‘protected sex’, this all encourages the default presumption of victimhood for the feminine.

The crowning irony of the feminine reality is that men should be accused of patriarchy while enabling the very framework of the feminine imperative. The feminine sexual strategy is victorious because even under the contrived auspices of male oppression, it’s still the female goal-state that is agreed upon as the correct effort. Satisfying the feminine imperative, achieving the ends of the feminine sexual strategy is still the normative condition. Men’s goals are aberrant, women’s are beatific.

Forgive me if I’ve waxed a bit too poetic here, but it’s important to see the Matrix for what it really is. The next occasion you lock horns with even the most well-meaning woman’s (or mangina’s) opinions about life, relationships, marriage, having babies, religion, etc. understand that her perceptions are based in this reality. She’s correct because her beliefs line up with what the framework of her reality reinforced in her as correct. Any other frame of reference is either utterly alien to her at best, wicked and evil at worst.

Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

It’s important to remember that much of this is social construct which, by definition, everyone buys into. It’s true that a given woman has internalized such to an extent that she’s no idea that she’s following a script…but that’s a script provided by evolution and sexual selection.

I saw tits and then a lot of big words. I’m confused. What is the feminine reality? It sounds like you are saying that all human mating and reproduction serves the feminine imperative over the masculine. So what is the masculine sexual imperative that is being subjugated to the feminine?

I don’t get this part either, perhaps it needs further elucidation:

Monogamy and fidelity are only useful when paired with an optimized hypergamy. Without that optimization, they’re inconvenient obligations to the the feminine reality.

So what is the masculine sexual imperative that is being subjugated to the feminine?

Simply put, polygamy/variety. In a masculine imperative, higher status attractive guys with options might have one main woman with some plates spinning on the side. In a masculine imperative, this would seem perfectly normal/acceptable, and more importantly it would seem normal to women. In fact, for most of history in many cultures, high-status men having mistresses was perfectly normal. I’m not arguing whether htat is right or wrong or whatever, but the idea of “faithful monongamy” serves the female interest.

Monogamy and fidelity are only useful when paired with an optimized hypergamy. Without that optimization, they’re inconvenient obligations to the the feminine reality

I could be misinterpreting this, but my take on this it is simply saying women by and large ONLY want monogamy and fidelity with attractive men. If you give them the option of monogamy and fidelity with some total schlub/AFC they are not as interested, and may in fact be more interested in being part of the soft harem/rotation of a high-status attractive man. .

“You get married, out of fear for not being found acceptable of it, or from social shame for not yet having accepted your role in service to the imperative. Your children are offered in tribute to it, while in turn you unknowingly perpetuate it in them. You pay tribute in alimony, in divorce proceedings, in the expected sacrifices your career demands to maintain its influence in your own life and in society at large. You exist to facilitate a feminine reality.”

The opening image is powerful, and adds massive irony to the body of the post.

Having said that, it’s a Red-Pill message if there ever was one. This bit of masculine pharmacology is tough for some men to swallow, and sometimes tough for us to digest, even for us who’ve taken the medicine for years now.

Having said that, with this frame in mind, I can see how business interactions in my life have been colored through the lens of the feminine imperative. At what point do you cut off business interactions with women attempting to use the pussy pass as a way to take advantage of their gender?

Or does one simply use game as a counterinsurgency, to serve one’s own interests?

“Ring, Ring. Morph: Answer the phone. Neo: I can’t, my wife won’t let me answer my own telephone. Morph: Look at a Playboy. Neo: Damn man, why you talking dirty to me, you know she won’t let me do that. Morph: Hangs up, Next.”
It sounds like there is going to be a Matrix 4 and 5. Maybe in 4 Neo will hook up with Persephone, Trinity will get jealous, then they will go do jello shots and have a threesome. In 5 the 3 of them will take some of Sati’s red pill filled cookies to other people starting with lawyers who don’t want to relinquish their salaries and comfy offices until the cookies finally open their eyes to over-turn divorce laws and finally there will be peace and happiness.
I’ve suggested to parents that they do not feed soy infant formula to male babies because it is estrogenic, or to not microwave/heat in plastic baby bottles and they got upset at me.
I have told religious fanatic people that like George Clooney I am never going to get married and they went crazy attacking me.
Just like in schools, make sure to raise your hand to ask a controlling woman teacher if you can go to the bathroom, so she even controls your urine and for the salary of her career she gives you grades of her approval or disapproval. If you get bad grades another female that of your mommy doesn’t approve. If you don’t go to church and be a good boy your grandmother and AFC-pastor doesn’t approve. If you don’t have a good job making enough money to please her your wife does not approve. So my frame, as a man, is to say F***k off, I do NOT do anything for approval or to avoid disapproval.

“[W]omen by and large ONLY want monogamy and fidelity with attractive men.” **and the option to trade out/up (with a claim on assets/income to support themselves as they do so) when they find that they are no longer attracted to the men.**

The feminine imperative wants you to be a “good boy” and do what women want you to do.

This includes-

Not being a player. You are depriving girls of the provider they deserve by not locking yourself into one girl.

Turning into a whipped shlub. Become the provider who dotes on her.

Staying the whipped shlub. So she can cheat on you to get her alpha high while staying secure in her provision.

or

Be the alpha she corrals, and stay only with her, and be her provider.

Those are overarching themes, but under the female imperative, all is geared towards securing safety/providership, along with the genes of the alpha.

A meta view for sure, one that isn’t pulled off a majority of the time, and it can be unpacked and nuanced.

Also- it’s all shit tests, by the way. Your best bet in life and with women, as Rollo is keen to point out, is to avoid becoming entrapped by the imperative. Be the leader, don’t succumb, and have relationships/sex on your terms.

Men’s imperatives and women’s intersect. Most men want some bonding and a stable relationship with a loving supportive mate.

Yes, women will put up with infidelity, but that is conditional. They don’t do that well when they are in love and living with the guy. Eventually the flip out and leave.

Non-monogamous relationships have a shelf life, and in addition they have an intimacy limit. Once she is head over heels uncontrollably in love with you, and gives you her heart mind body and soul, her jealousy will be uncontrollable, and she will give you unstoppable grief over competition. She’ll put up with a lot for a while – maybe 6 months. But eventually she’ll snap.

And so there is no escaping the feminine imperative, if you want to keep your masculine imperative. Where the two intersect is a battle no one can win.

What men can do is arrange their logistics such that they get some discreetly on the side. Or have multiple rotating relationships with no live in girl.

There is no managing the feminine imperative on a permanent basis other than those compromises.

This is true for the average man, but a man with high SMV (read- the guy who has value beyond the PUA skills he learned on the internet) can command the undivided attention of numerous women for many, many years.

I’m not very familiar with the case of Tiger Woods, but wasn’t he being discreet, and when his wife found out, she snapped?

I’m guessing that if you read what I wrote a second time you’ll agree with me.

I did not say that a man can’t have multiple partners for a long time. I said that state of being is conditional. I don’t agree that the man’s status is enough of a condition for it. There is also an intimacy limit especially when your main girl lives with you. Otherwise you’ll rotate through a stable of partners.

Casual intimate relationships take on an entirely different character after a time, if you are very good at getting the girl head over heels seriously in love with you. I prefer to do that, but realize that this benefit comes with a cost. Intimacy and jealousy are closely linked.

I do agree with what you are saying, my point was that the conditions are different for a high value man compared to one of lower value. A high value man can get away with just about anything short of bringing his mistresses to Christmas dinner.

Tiger Woods discrete? I don’t think so. I knew of one of his mistresses years ago because she was peripherally involved with my social group. If he were trying that hard to hide it I wouldn’t have gotten a phone call from the girl I was dating at the time asking if I wanted to come hang out with her in the VIP with Tiger and at least one of his local fuck buddies. This wasn’t in another city, state, or country…..this was right down the road from Tiger’s house.

I’m still going to disagree that being high value will allow a man to not be discreet. And I don’t see what’s not discreet about meeting a girl near to where you live. You are giving the woman the option of not knowing. Her friends and family aren’t involved, the girls don’t meet, and you don’t outright talk about fucking other girls. You either outright deny it or refuse to talk about it at all.

A woman who doesn’t want to leave her man will put up with more, yes. But that doesn’t mean she’ll stop having emotions. And the more she is in love with the man, the wilder her emotions can be. Strong uncontrollable emotions don’t lessen with the status of the man. If anything she’ll be more desparate to keep him. And is there a woman who understands that the way to keep a man is to let him have what he wants? Perhaps there are some, very rare few, but these would be the exception. Feminine women have feminine emotions, and the most famous feminine emotion of fall is jealousy.

Even if she agrees to non monogamy, as soon as the situation gets real, she’ll be surprised by her own reactions.

Not to say that threesomes and dalliances can’t be easily handled, in some relationships with some serious mates. But if the woman feels her position is threatened, she’ll either fight or leave. And she can threatened when you don’t feel threatening. What freaks women out and causes extreme jealousy even more than sex, odd as this may sound, is provisioning. Provision another girl and a mental breakdown may ensue.

Blatant non-monogamy has a destabilizing effect, no matter the mans status and value, or even attitude.

A high value man doesn’t have to be discreet in the same manner that a regular guy has to be discreet because the wife of a man with that much value goes into denial and usually remains there until the man loses his status OR she decides it’s time to cash in via divorce theft.

You think Tiger’s wife didn’t know at least on a subconscious level that he was fucking around? Of course she did. She probably had friends and family telling her point blank what they knew about his affairs. She just chose to go with the flow until the timing was right. If you think for one second that she just found he he was cheating the night she clubbed him you obviously haven’t spent much time around couples where the man has well above average status.

So you are saying that a high value man also has to be discreet, but gets more leeway.

I’m saying that too, so we agree.

And apparently we also agree that a man must compromise towards the feminine imperative, if he wants a stable live in relationship with a woman who loves him, by not inflaming a destabilizing amount of jealousy.

On discreet vs. non-discreet, I think the issue is more that the man not openly shame his wife/monogamous other. There can be such a thing as an ‘open secret’ that everyone is aware of (i.e. Tiger Wood’s infidelities were one of the biggest non-secret secrets in the golfing world), but as long as it does not cross the threshold to open shaming, a lot can be put up with, depending of course on the woman.

For example, I recall a Japanese TV personality who was a well-known lothario, and even incorporated it into his screen image. His wife may or may not have been happy about it, but she put up with it for a long time until one day, on a variety talk show, the host pinned him down with some questions and he made the stupid mistake of answering honestly, bringing what everyone had known hush-hush out into the open. The wife, now publicly shamed, kicked him out of the house and they were divorced within a short time.

I believe that this is part, but not all of the story regarding a live in mates ability to accept infidelity.

Some is going to come down to innate personality, with the more feminine personalities being more jealous. Some is going to come down to how much she is willing to compromise to be with the guy, based on such things as his attitude and status.

Some, as you say, will come down to her public face.

But I still contend that the bulk of the problem, and a problem that reaches men of all status, is plain old female jealousy of competition. Not shame, not a lack of interest in a low value mate, but pure boiling jealousy.

[…] on…. this leads to losing the battle by not turning up for the fight. Writ large in society the Feminine Imperative has snatched the frame such that most men so thoroughly identify with femcentric values that their […]

It’s not that I’ve got anything against nudity – it’s just that it’s not the women who are getting crucified! Shouldn’t they be the ones driving the nails, and gambling for the cloak, er marital assets?

[…] female writer in the manosphere seeks when confronted with the harsh truths of Game, Hypergamy, the Feminine Imperative and contemporary understanding of intergender dynamics – feminine absolution of acknowledgement […]

[…] how the term misogynist has been expanded to such a degree that it includes those who disprove of fem-centric thought. I do not hate women. I do not hate sluts. I will gladly hit them with some dick, but they […]

[…] … women by and large ONLY want monogamy and fidelity with attractive men. If you give them the option of monogamy and fidelity with some total schlub/AFC they are not as interested, and may in fact be more interested in being part of the soft harem/rotation of a high-status attractive man. [källa – varning, bild på topless kvinna] […]

[…] … women by and large ONLY want monogamy and fidelity with attractive men. If you give them the option of monogamy and fidelity with some total schlub/AFC they are not as interested, and may in fact be more interested in being part of the soft harem/rotation of a high-status attractive man. [källa – varning, bild på topless kvinna] […]

[…] I failed to consider is that women’s innate Hypergamy was in conflict with the plan of the feminine imperative. Later in life, the male offspring of the feminine imperative (Betas) would come to realize the […]

[…] the feminine social conventions used to control us, we began to see the overarching reach of the feminine imperative and fem-centrism, and we came to realize the insidious, but naturalistic, influence feminine […]

[…] As far as power is concerned I think anyone who’s read the Rational Male for more than a few posts knows I quote Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power more often than any other resource here, and regularly use those laws to illustrate how they apply to intergender relations. That said, I have dedicated posts to the influence power has in personal dynamics, and I certainly recognize, if sometimes indirectly, the power dynamic in Frame, Dread, and certainly in The Feminine Imperative. […]

‘but the idea of “faithful monongamy” serves the female interest.’
Actually no, monogamy serves male interest most of all and as a side effect society because it gives all males something to provide for and eleminates a big part of male aggressiveness and competition, people believe that polygamy is beneficial for men because they only see the winner and they don’t see the loser who is also a male, under polygamy many men will be left without mates and will be cast out of the society.

1) who pushes for monogamy commitment more often, men or women?
2) who cheats more, men or women?
3) who would wish fucking around was allowed more often, men or women?
4) who gets shamed and has to be cajoled into marriage more often, men or women?

There are caveats for each of these questions, but to me its obvious.

Monogamy favors the family unity. At the center of the family are the woman and children. Remove monogamy and hotter women bring unestability to that unity. And after a woman hits 35 or so, every other younger woman is hotter.

You don’t seem to get it apparently, I never implied that men are monogamous by nature on the contrary men are polygamous (as a matter of fact women aren’t entirely monogamous either) but just because men are polygamous it doesn’t mean that this favours men, polygamy only favors SOME men, the strongest ones and leaves the rest without mates. So while every man would want to be the harem owner only a few will succeed. Women can live both monogamously and polygamously, majority of the women will procreate either way if they so desire as history has proven, with polygamy giving women access to the top males and monogamy preferred for love. But we have to remember that throughout most of history people married for tons of other reasons but love, chosing a partner freerly and because of love is actually a new thing.

‘Remove monogamy and hotter women bring unestability to that unity. And after a woman hits 35 or so, every other younger woman is hotter.’
Nope, new women are constantly added into the harem in fact there have been cases in history of one man having 4000 wives lol, and lots of people both men and women will state how this favors men without noticing the 3999 men who didn’t mate.

[…] The whole book is written in that manner, fully neglecting observable realities and buying into the feminine imperative. approaching a topic from that perspective i9s the zeitgeist thing to do, but nonetheless […]

“…lots of people both men and women will state how this favors men without noticing the 3999 men who didn’t mate.”

This. The “masculine imperative” only obtains support by men envisioning themselves near the top of the pyramid with access to multiple sources of females. No one sees themselves the lowly servant with little or no access to any sex for most of their lives. The masculine imperative does not really help the common man.

In fact, modern feminism ends up serving this male imperative model in part. Traditional monogamous relationships break down, short term, open relationships and “pump and dumps” become more normalized. Although women have just delayed, not eliminated their monogamous instincts, the current sexual marketplace is as close to the masculine imperative as we have seen in some time. Men should be thrilled, ecstatic, about the opportunity to pursue as many women and short-term relationships as they want without shame. But they are not happy, not on the whole. Why not? Why does the manosphere exist in the first place? Why does Game exist? Because in the breakdown of the monogamous structure, many men find themselves unable to compete for female attention against the elite and against the Alphas.

So the monogamous structure actually serves both females and the average male, allowing the female security, stability and access to resources, while allowing the common man access to sex and the ability to fulfill his role as protector and provider. It means that average guys get a chance against Alphas and hypergamous female instincts.

It is a mistake to disparage the monogamous institutions themselves because they have long served the interests of commoners of both genders, not just females. The issue is that the institution has changed and now favours female interests instead of a more equitable give and take. The benefits to men are eroding such that it is no longer as desirable a choice.

[…] type of long term commitment. This is a cold reality, but a reality nevertheless. She seemed to not want to come to grips with the reality of this situation that she squandered her best with various other men and she […]

[…] A good summation of the Feminine Imperative can be found here for all those who want to read it; The Feminine Reality | Now, the article; BYSTANDER INTERVENTION is so easy to grasp, even by the most inexperienced […]

Don’t think you actually said what the feminine imperative *is*, though. And it’s so easily stated:

“Women must survive and breed”.

And this wraps up everything, chivalry, provisioning, their comparative immunity to prison, everything. Perhaps the main thing most immediately missing from that definition above is the qualification. For each woman, the imperative becomes “*I* must survive and breed”. For each man, it’s “*My woman* must survive and breed”. If he is without a mate, it becomes “My prospective mates must survive and breed”, with all the racist whight-knightery that entails.

[…] Reddit and that’s where the good comments are. Once the mainstream media picked up it up, the feminine imperative erupted loudly and the focus quickly shifted to the sexual desires of women and the victimhood of […]